Colts offseason forecast from NFL.com

[COLTS449]

Can we afford Monroe, Saffold, and Puente?

 

Yeah, but that would be way too much tied up in the O Line, and we have other major holes to fill on defense.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I don't think the $10 million has any bearing on what contracts other teams can offer ... teams can offer him any contract they choose  $6, $7, $8, etc   million a year ... but Cleveland gets the right to match any offer.  The $10 million number only comes into play if he doesn't sign with another team, and does not come to a long term contract with Cleveland. In that situation than Mack plays for 1 year $10 million for Cleveland.

 

There are two franchise tags - exclusive, means he cannot negotiate with other teams, period.  The other is non-exclusive.  here's how that one works-

 

"A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."

 

For a Transition Tag-

 

"If another club offers a contract to a transitioned player, his original club has seven days to decide whether to match that offer or not. If the original club agrees to match, the player is forced to sign with the original club at the terms agreed to in the offer by the other club. If the original club declines to match, the player signs with the other team, and the original team is offered no compensation, as they would be if the player had received the franchise tag."  Browns have shown they'll pay over 10 mil.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000330088/article/nfl-releases-2014-franchise-transition-tag-numbers

 

Seems too expensive, even for Mack.

[esmort]

There are two franchise tags - exclusive, means he cannot negotiate with other teams, period.  The other is non-exclusive.  here's how that one works-

 

"A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft picks as compensation."

 

For a Transition Tag-

 

"If another club offers a contract to a transitioned player, his original club has seven days to decide whether to match that offer or not. If the original club agrees to match, the player is forced to sign with the original club at the terms agreed to in the offer by the other club. If the original club declines to match, the player signs with the other team, and the original team is offered no compensation, as they would be if the player had received the franchise tag."  Browns have shown they'll pay over 10 mil.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000330088/article/nfl-releases-2014-franchise-transition-tag-numbers

 

Seems too expensive, even for Mack.

 

Don't understand the point you are making. Did you highlight that stuff that does not apply to transition tags?

 

If you are trying to say that a team has to offer Mack a contract of at least $10+ million you are not understanding what you are reading.

 

????

[Superman]

That was just off the top of my head ... the new rule does is not in depth and its vagueness leaves creative loop holes ... it mainly plugs the obvious ones: "if a player plays more than 2 games in Cleveland he gets $50 mil bonus" etc ....

 

I have not read word for word any nfl players contract, but I will almost guarantee that there are clauses, bonuses, etc ... that are commonly used that could be mixed and matched to produce a contract favorable to Indy and much less favorable to Cleveland yet avoids actually being a "poison pill" .... accounting, and legal documents can always be creatively crafted without officially breaking any laws/rules.

 

I won't pretend to know everything about how this works, but I believe they stipulated in the CBA that poison pill verbiage would be decided upon by the Management Council on a case by case basis. They gave away pretty broad authority on these matters.

 

There are clauses that could be included that might be more favorable to one team, and less to another, but I believe they all have to be financial incentives contained by the player's performance, not dependent on any other player's contract, and not promises of future pay increases that have nothing to do with the player. What you described above, basically a rider that's based on another player's contract, would most likely not be approved by the NFL, whether it's for a transition tagged player or not. Just based on my very rudimentary understanding.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Don't understand the point you are making. Did you highlight that stuff that does not apply to transition tags?

 

If you are trying to say that a team has to offer Mack a contract of at least $10+ million you are not understanding what you are reading.

 

????

 

 

Here's the deal, the Browns will match any other offer up to 10, 039, 000.00.  It's fact-

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/alex-mack/

 

It's his pay, all guaranteed.

 

Now, if you're telling me a team can offer say, 6 mil per year and either he can't reject it, or even accepts it, then the Browns just match that offer and get Mack for a big discount.   But Browns won't pay 11.6 mil, because if they were willing they would have placed a non-exclusive franchise him, and get two first round picks for him (Or match the offer and still retain him)

 

There will be no cheap way to get Mack. Period.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/118967/inside-slant-reminder-on-poison-pills

[ColtsBlueFL]

I won't pretend to know everything about how this works, but I believe they stipulated in the CBA that poison pill verbiage would be decided upon by the Management Council on a case by case basis. They gave away pretty broad authority on these matters.

 

There are clauses that could be included that might be more favorable to one team, and less to another, but I believe they all have to be financial incentives contained by the player's performance, not dependent on any other player's contract, and not promises of future pay increases that have nothing to do with the player. What you described above, basically a rider that's based on another player's contract, would most likely not be approved by the NFL, whether it's for a transition tagged player or not. Just based on my very rudimentary understanding.

 

This is the wording in the new CBA-

 

 

"No Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no 'poison pills')."

 

Those days of wrestling a dude from a team using the transition tag via poison pill contacts are over.

[Superman]

This is the wording in the new CBA-

 

 

"No Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no 'poison pills')."

 

Those days of wrestling a dude from a team using the transition tag via poison pill contacts are over.

 

There you go.

[esmort]

Here's the deal, the Browns will match any other offer up to 10, 039, 000.00.  It's fact-

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/alex-mack/

 

It's his pay, all guaranteed.

 

Now, if you're telling me a team can offer say, 6 mil per year and either he can't reject it, or even accepts it, then the Browns just match that offer and get Mack for a big discount.   But Browns won't pay 11.6 mil, because if they were willing they would have placed a non-exclusive franchise him, and get two first round picks for him (Or match the offer and still retain him)

 

There will be no cheap way to get Mack. Period.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/118967/inside-slant-reminder-on-poison-pills

 

That's not necessarily true ... although they are willing to pay the $10 million for one year they are gambling they won't have to.  So while they are willing to gamble on MAYBE having to pay $10 million ... you can't assume that $10 million is the yearly number they are willing to pay on a multi year contract ... my guess is the top number they will match a number up to around what Kalil got ~$8.2 Mil/yr ... $9 mil/yr or more I bet they let him walk; and will almost guarantee if someone offers him a multi-year contract that averages $10 mil or more per year they won't match.

[NewEra]

I don't know why we wouldn't be going defense and addressing the line. For years and years teams have won with good defenses, and good offensive lines that can run the ball, period

[NewEra]

Double post, sorry

[esmort]

This is the wording in the new CBA-

 

 

"No Offer Sheet may contain a Principal Term that would create rights or obligations for the Old Club that differ in any way (including but not limited to the amount of compensation that would be paid, the circumstances in which compensation would be guaranteed, or the circumstances in which other contractual rights would or would not vest) from the rights or obligations that such Principal Term would create for the Club extending the Offer Sheet (i.e., no 'poison pills')."

 

Those days of wrestling a dude from a team using the transition tag via poison pill contacts are over.

 

 

There you go.

I have read it, I am just saying from personal experience with legal code and working with contracts that have been voided over a comma being in the wrong place, that that one CBA paragraph is not nearly comprehensive enough to prevent a contract that was essentially a poison pill but did not meet the definition necessary to void it ... although if there was some committee review process (which I don't know if there is or is not")  they might still throw it out.

 

I am done arguing about it though, because I don't think the Colts would do it anyway so it is a moot point.

 

[Superman]

 

 

I have read it, I am just saying from personal experience with legal code and working with contracts that have been voided over a comma being in the wrong place, that that one CBA paragraph is not nearly comprehensive enough to prevent a contract that was essentially a poison pill but did not meet the definition necessary to void it ... although if there was some committee review process (which I don't know if there is or is not")  they might still throw it out.

 

I am done arguing about it though, because I don't think the Colts would do it anyway so it is a moot point.

 

 

I don't think the Colts would do it, either. And I don't mean to argue about it. I thought we were just having a discussion. This kind of stuff is really interesting to me.

 

You're right that contract verbiage -- specifically with the CBA -- is a big deal. But I think the overriding factor is that the CBA expressly gives authority in these matters to the Management Council. There could be grievances files and debates had, but I think the intent of the CBA, whatever that's worth, is to get rid of poison pills. And that's why the Management Council approves each contract on its own merits.

[esmort]

I don't think the Colts would do it, either. And I don't mean to argue about it. I thought we were just having a discussion. This kind of stuff is really interesting to me.

 

You're right that contract verbiage -- specifically with the CBA -- is a big deal. But I think the overriding factor is that the CBA expressly gives authority in these matters to the Management Council. There could be grievances files and debates had, but I think the intent of the CBA, whatever that's worth, is to get rid of poison pills. And that's why the Management Council approves each contract on its own merits.

 

Ohh I agree I like discussing these things too .... I didn't mean it like I felt we were actually arguing ... Just seemed like I had several discussions going at once about various aspects of the Mack transition tag when I actually agreed with most about the part about us likely not getting Mack, just disagreeing with the minor details and inaccuracies of why ... lol ;)

[Superman]

Ohh I agree I like discussing these things too .... I didn't mean it like I felt we were actually arguing ... Just seemed like I had several discussions going at once about various aspects of the Mack transition tag when I actually agreed with most about the part about us likely not getting Mack, just disagreeing with the minor details and inaccuracies of why ... lol ;)

 

 

I didn't think the Colts would be buyers on Mack to begin with, given his assumed price tag (which is pretty much confirmed, since the Browns had to tag him to begin with). I definitely don't expect them to jump in now.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

If we sign Eric Decker I'm becoming a Seattle fan. #BookIt

Signing WR's who trip over their own 2 feet in the open field

Decker is overrated because he catches passes from Manning. #18 makes all receivers better than

they really are, Decker won't be worth what we give him....bank on it!

[esmort]

 

I didn't think the Colts would be buyers on Mack to begin with, given his assumed price tag (which is pretty much confirmed, since the Browns had to tag him to begin with). I definitely don't expect them to jump in now.

 

I agree, they will probably make a call and get an idea of what the number is just to be sure, than bow out and go after a 2nd or 3rd tier center.  I am curious who it will be though, you know Grigson would love to try to find him a under the radar/hidden gem type guy, but I think he knows he will take a lot of heat if he does that and our line suffers because of it.

[Superman]

If we sign Eric Decker I'm becoming a Seattle fan. #BookIt

Signing WR's who trip over their own 2 feet in the open field

 

Can I just give you a reason why that's a really weird thing for someone to say?

 

The Seahawks gave up a bunch of picks and a $12m/year contract to Percy Harvin last year. That didn't prevent them from improving their team in other ways, and they did more than enough to get to the Super Bowl, and win it.

 

Seriously, why do people hate good players so much???

[jskinnz]

Can I just give you a reason why that's a really weird thing for someone to say?

 

The Seahawks gave up a bunch of picks and a $12m/year contract to Percy Harvin last year. That didn't prevent them from improving their team in other ways, and they did more than enough to get to the Super Bowl, and win it.

 

Seriously, why do people hate good players so much???

 

Because they have this misguided notion that signing a FA that plays a position viewed to be less of a need than another somehow means they are foresaking the need altogether.

[Superman]

Because they have this misguided notion that signing a FA that plays a position viewed to be less of a need than another somehow means they are foresaking the need altogether.

 

Yeah, that's unfortunate.

[TKnight24]

Can I just give you a reason why that's a really weird thing for someone to say?

The Seahawks gave up a bunch of picks and a $12m/year contract to Percy Harvin last year. That didn't prevent them from improving their team in other ways, and they did more than enough to get to the Super Bowl, and win it.

Seriously, why do people hate good players so much???

Decker is average at best, slightly above average. He'll either have 2-4 TD's one game, or completely disappear the other. Too inconsistent. Drops some easy passes time to time.

If we get him for a reasonable price I don't care. But if he's asking for top dollar then we better not even bring him in our stadium. There's no reason to pay a bunch of money to a position that's not a DRASTIC need. Especially when there's plenty of receivers sitting in the draft

[Superman]

Decker is average at best, slightly above average. He'll either have 2-4 TD's one game, or completely disappear the other. Too inconsistent. Drops some easy passes time to time.

If we get him for a reasonable price I don't care. But if he's asking for top dollar then we better not even bring him in our stadium. There's no reason to pay a bunch of money to a position that's not a DRASTIC need. Especially when there's plenty of receivers sitting in the draft

 

Overrated, maybe. Definitely not worthy of #1 receiver money. But saying he's average or slightly above average is nonsense. And that's without mentioning how in love people around here are with ordinary and unproven guys like Lavon Brazill, Griff Whalen and Da'Rick Rogers. Another poster told me recently that "we have TWO Marvin Harrisons." LOL

 

Truth is that Eric Decker is better than anyone we have right now, outside of TY Hilton. And he's actually a more complete receiver than Hilton is, with better size, runs a better route tree, etc. His production with Tim Tebow rivaled Hilton's 2012 production, with Luck throwing the ball 650 times. Decker is a really good receiver, despite his limitations (which are grossly overstated in your post).

 

And to be clear, I don't want us to sign Eric Decker. If we did, we'd be getting a really good player that would help improve our passing attack, but I don't think we should even consider spending the kind of money he's probably going to be asking for. No need to bring him in for a visit, or do anything more than ask his agent what the asking price is. I'd prefer to draft a receiver, because like you say, there are plenty available in the draft who can play right away, and they'd come at a fraction of what Decker will cost.

 

But it's just ludicrous to say that you'd go be a Seahawks fan if the team signs a really good player at a premium for a position that we don't really need that much help at (which, again, is probably not an accurate assessment of our receiver situation, but whatever). The Seahawks not only overpaid Harvin, but they gave up a bunch of picks for the privilege of doing so, and he did virtually nothing for them on the way to the Super Bowl. You were probably just kidding, but I'm just pointing out how silly the resistance is in the first place. "If my team does this thing I don't think they should, I'm going to go be a fan of a team that just did that same thing I don't think we should do, only they did it to an even more extreme degree." 

[OffensivelyPC]

 

I'd prefer to draft a receiver, because like you say, there are plenty available in the draft who can play right away, and they'd come at a fraction of what Decker will cost.

It begs the question, and it's nothing that we have discussed or that I've seen (or at least recall) you state your opinion.  What receivers do you like?  If we're talking a Wayne "replacement", let's say you use either 2nd, 3rd, or 5th on a WR.  I know you (and me, for that matter) like Jordan Matthews.  But I don't think he will be there.  So, you're drafting, if we take a receiver in a round state your picks:

 

2nd:

3rd:

5th:

 

I obviously don't mean you'd take a WR in all three, I'm just curious who you think would be there, and assuming they were available, who would you take.  Also, "none" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

 

If it's me, I say Davante Adams in the 2nd, Donte Moncrief in the 3rd, and 5th Devin Street.

[Superman]

It begs the question, and it's nothing that we have discussed or that I've seen (or at least recall) you state your opinion.  What receivers do you like?  If we're talking a Wayne "replacement", let's say you use either 2nd, 3rd, or 5th on a WR.  I know you (and me, for that matter) like Jordan Matthews.  But I don't think he will be there.  So, you're drafting, if we take a receiver in a round state your picks:

 

2nd:

3rd:

5th:

 

I obviously don't mean you'd take a WR in all three, I'm just curious who you think would be there, and assuming they were available, who would you take.  Also, "none" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

 

If it's me, I say Davante Adams in the 2nd, Donte Moncrief in the 3rd, and 5th Devin Street.

 

If I couldn't take Jordan Matthews, I don't think there's a receiver I'd want in the 2nd round. Davante Adams maybe, but I'd just as soon trade down and take a guy like Moncrief or Abbrederis in the 3rd. Hard to not wonder about Martavis Bryant's potential also, and he'll be there in the third, maybe late third. Have only watched one of Devin Street's games, and I wasn't really all that taken with him, but all the scouting reports praise his hands and toughness. 

 

All told, I'd be fine waiting until the 6th or 7th and taking Cody Hoffman. And I like Trey Burton as a UDFA, given his jack-of-all-trades potential. 

 

Of those guys, only Matthews and Adams are realistic "Wayne replacements," although you never know what happens. 

[southwest1]

Luck and Decker could tear it up..

In what alternative universe are you seeing that? I wouldn't touch Decker with a 20 ft. pole. Don't want em, don't need him, & he joined FBI Witness Protection in the SB vs the SeaHawks. Where was he?

 

If you can spot him on the field in February let me know would ya? Welker showed up; Decker sure as hades didn't. I'm not holding him responsible for the loss, but I do expect a high caliber WR to keep fighting until the game is officially over. A whipped spirit & lackluster effort disgusts me. Now, if he kept working to get open & still took hits, I'd be alright with awarding Decker with a big payday, but not after a crappy performance like that, I'd have some serious reservations. Effort matters more than athletic talent to me. 

 

Do you think Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, or a healthy Reggie Wayne would have given up or thrown in the towel in a SB appearance? Absolutely not! 

[OffensivelyPC]

If I couldn't take Jordan Matthews, I don't think there's a receiver I'd want in the 2nd round. Davante Adams maybe, but I'd just as soon trade down and take a guy like Moncrief or Abbrederis in the 3rd. Hard to not wonder about Martavis Bryant's potential also, and he'll be there in the third, maybe late third. Have only watched one of Devin Street's games, and I wasn't really all that taken with him, but all the scouting reports praise his hands and toughness. 

 

All told, I'd be fine waiting until the 6th or 7th and taking Cody Hoffman. And I like Trey Burton as a UDFA, given his jack-of-all-trades potential. 

 

Of those guys, only Matthews and Adams are realistic "Wayne replacements," although you never know what happens. 

I agree with you on waiting until the 3rd and/or trading down.  I think it goes without saying that the trade down depends on who's still on the board and what we'd be receiving. 

 

Devin Street would be a solid mid-late draft pick, but if he were ever to be the "Wayne replacement," it would be a project - the potential of which may or may not be reached.  What I don't like about him is he needs a lot of work on his route running.  He rounds off routes at times and other times he makes a solid cut, but doesn't explode out of his cut.  Coachable, but one of the more difficult things to coach, especially when the guy doesn't have that great of acceleration to begin with.  But he does have generally good instincts, above average hands and a nice catch radius.  Realistically, I think his ceiling is a #2 WR, but like you said, you never know.

 

I haven't seen much of anything on Hoffman other than in the combine, and even then I wasn't really doing much evaluating with respect to him.  Will need to look into Burton as I haven't seen anything about him.

[Jaric]

Because they have this misguided notion that signing a FA that plays a position viewed to be less of a need than another somehow means they are foresaking the need altogether.

My issue is that's he's a good receiver who is likely to get paid like a great receiver. I'm fine with him coming here as long as the money is right. But since he's pretty clearly the best FA WR I have doubts that happens.

Also, the WRs available to be drafted look pretty deep and we may be able to address WR in the second or third round, allowing us to spend the hypothetical Decker money to address another need.

[jskinnz]

My issue is that's he's a good receiver who is likely to get paid like a great receiver. I'm fine with him coming here as long as the money is right. But since he's pretty clearly the best FA WR I have doubts that happens.

Also, the WRs available to be drafted look pretty deep and we may be able to address WR in the second or third round, allowing us to spend the hypothetical Decker money to address another need.

 

Several things...

 

1) I am not necessarily an advocate for Decker but I do think he would immediately upgrade our receiving corps. 

2) The price does have to be right but I will let Grigson decide on what is right. I think there is way too much made on this board on player salaries.  If the Colts think he is worth it at whatever cost, then that is good enough for me.

3) Agree about the draft - many ways to make your team better.  If they pass on Decker or any FA WR, I go with the theory they know more than I do.  They will clearly draft a WR if no FA's are signed.  They may draft if a FA is signed. 

4) My biggest issue is that if the Colts do sign Decker or another WR to a healthy contract, it does not mean they are going ride with the current interior olinemen.  They will address that area as well.  That is what so many people fail to realize on here - makes me nuts frankly.

[Jaric]

Several things...

1) I am not necessarily an advocate for Decker but I do think he would immediately upgrade our receiving corps.

2) The price does have to be right but I will let Grigson decide on what is right. I think there is way too much made on this board on player salaries. If the Colts think he is worth it at whatever cost, then that is good enough for me.

3) Agree about the draft - many ways to make your team better. If they pass on Decker or any FA WR, I go with the theory they know more than I do. They will clearly draft a WR if no FA's are signed. They may draft if a FA is signed.

4) My biggest issue is that if the Colts do sign Decker or another WR to a healthy contract, it does not mean they are going ride with the current interior olinemen. They will address that area as well. That is what so many people fail to realize on here - makes me nuts frankly.

1) Agreed. I also think he'd mesh well with the other guys we already have.

2). Half agree. I'll the first to admit Grigson and company know infinitely more about this stuff than I do. That said, if we back a Brinks truck up to Decker's house I'm going to be concerned

3) I. gave up predicting Colts draft direction very early into the Bill Polian era. I think Luck might be the only pick I've ever come close on in the 20 years or so I've been a fan. While no one will confuse me with Mike Mayoch, the wide receivers look really good this year.

4). I don't look at it as a total either/or situation. However we are dealing with the management of a finite resource and every dollar we spend on Decker (or whoever) is a dollar we can't spend elsewhere. Keep in mind were also trying to keep Davis. Davis and Decker together could eat up over half our cap space for this year. Plus we need to keep some back for rookies and emergency. (This is the one time the Richardson trade has helped up since we don't have to save money for a first rounder...).

If we're looking at FA WRs, I'm more interested in Jones from GB. He's less of a long term solution but would be much cheaper and give us time to figure out what we have with Rogers and Brazil.

[jskinnz]

1) Agreed. I also think he'd mesh well with the other guys we already have.

2). Half agree. I'll the first to admit Grigson and company know infinitely more about this stuff than I do. That said, if we back a Brinks truck up to Decker's house I'm going to be concerned

3) I. gave up predicting Colts draft direction very early into the Bill Polian era. I think Luck might be the only pick I've ever come close on in the 20 years or so I've been a fan. While no one will confuse me with Mike Mayoch, the wide receivers look really good this year.

4). I don't look at it as a total either/or situation. However we are dealing with the management of a finite resource and every dollar we spend on Decker (or whoever) is a dollar we can't spend elsewhere. Keep in mind were also trying to keep Davis. Davis and Decker together could eat up over half our cap space for this year. Plus we need to keep some back for rookies and emergency. (This is the one time the Richardson trade has helped up since we don't have to save money for a first rounder...).

If we're looking at FA WRs, I'm more interested in Jones from GB. He's less of a long term solution but would be much cheaper and give us time to figure out what we have with Rogers and Brazil.

 

To point # 4, understand completely that there are not unlimited funds they can tap into.  The cap is the cap.  But I just think if they pay Decker or some other receiver big coin, it means they are confident they can get an o'linemen or two they like in the draft.  Or vice versa.  My point all along is that Grigson knows where the weaknesses are and will address them the way he sees fit.  You said it yourself - this not an either or situation and I am constantly amazed at how few people get that. 

[Defjamz26]

Pretty much everyone in the Colts safety not named Vontae Davis was a liability in coverage. I hope of we don't get the players we need this off-season, we draft straight secondary next year. This article and post from people on this board are making me realize that run defense is the bigger need. I still have images of Blount force trauma in my head.

[Beauregarde]

 

 

Do you think Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, or a healthy Reggie Wayne would have given up or thrown in the towel in a SB appearance? Absolutely not! 

Against Seattle, they would have been made to look that way.

[Beauregarde]

1) Agreed. I also think he'd mesh well with the other guys we already have.

2). Half agree. I'll the first to admit Grigson and company know infinitely more about this stuff than I do. That said, if we back a Brinks truck up to Decker's house I'm going to be concerned

3) I. gave up predicting Colts draft direction very early into the Bill Polian era. I think Luck might be the only pick I've ever come close on in the 20 years or so I've been a fan. While no one will confuse me with Mike Mayoch, the wide receivers look really good this year.

4). I don't look at it as a total either/or situation. However we are dealing with the management of a finite resource and every dollar we spend on Decker (or whoever) is a dollar we can't spend elsewhere. Keep in mind were also trying to keep Davis. Davis and Decker together could eat up over half our cap space for this year. Plus we need to keep some back for rookies and emergency. (This is the one time the Richardson trade has helped up since we don't have to save money for a first rounder...).

If we're looking at FA WRs, I'm more interested in Jones from GB. He's less of a long term solution but would be much cheaper and give us time to figure out what we have with Rogers and Brazil.

What you have in Rogers and Brazil are glorified practice squad players. They may or they may not amount to anything significant. While you wait to see what you have in those two, Houston will be pressing the Colts hard in the AFC South. They are building a great defense and they can get by with a lesser QB for a time.

[Jaric]

What you have in Rogers and Brazil are glorified practice squad players. They may or they may not amount to anything significant. While you wait to see what you have in those two, Houston will be pressing the Colts hard in the AFC South. They are building a great defense and they can get by with a lesser QB for a time.

Yeah that great defense lead them to 14 straight losses last year. They're a less interesting version of the Cowboys, perpetually snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and never living up to expectations.

But I get it. They aren't going to address the QB position which clearly makes them a Super Bowl favorite.

[Beauregarde]

Yeah that great defense lead them to 14 straight losses last year. They're a less interesting version of the Cowboys, perpetually snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and never living up to expectations.

But I get it. They aren't going to address the QB position which clearly makes them a Super Bowl favorite.

They are going to address the QB position but not with the number one pick. The Colts had the same record as the Texans three years ago and look how they have come back. Player for player, there is more talent on that Houston roster than on the Colts present one. Nobody called them a Super Bowl favorite and no one is calling the Colts that either. I think they come back tough next year and win ten or more games and, if they add Clowney, they will have one of the most disruptive defenses in the NFL.

[Jaric]

Ah yes "talent." I'd rather be good than talented any day. How's being "talented" worked out for the Cowboys the past ten years?